Hey guys this is my first post in the forums, I love this site because it facilitates a steady growth of knowledge. However according to logical inquiry I must assert that absolute certainty cannot be proven and therefore the knowledge itself may be fallible as well as the logic I use to assert it. I have quite a strong case backing me up and would like to hear your insight into this question. I am also currently debating this topic here: http://www.debate.org.... I would like to advertise this debate to you philosophers because 1) I believe it is an important topic and 2) I wish to have my debate voted for by the most fair and understanding individuals (philosophers). I believe I have an airtight argument ready to be deployed in Round 4 and will repeat it hear for refutation once the debate is up for voting.

Welcome to the site! It's certainly a great place. Most people use it to try and prove themselves right. I've only found it to increasingly bring me doubt. I don't even think exist anymore. But jumping off the ledge into absurdity is quite the rush, I must say.

At 7/10/2013 5:57:38 AM, FREEDO wrote:Welcome to the site! It's certainly a great place. Most people use it to try and prove themselves right. I've only found it to increasingly bring me doubt. I don't even think exist anymore. But jumping off the ledge into absurdity is quite the rush, I must say.

Thanks! I see you have debated this topic quite well :D. The only argument that actually scared me the most is that something exists. I have two refutations to this, one of them indeed does depend on the fallibility of logic itself. But don't jump off the ledge, we are still justified in believing things that may be incorrect. We can always analyze the probable truth of a claim with relativistic certainty.

At 7/10/2013 5:57:38 AM, FREEDO wrote:Welcome to the site! It's certainly a great place. Most people use it to try and prove themselves right. I've only found it to increasingly bring me doubt. I don't even think exist anymore. But jumping off the ledge into absurdity is quite the rush, I must say.

Thanks! I see you have debated this topic quite well :D. The only argument that actually scared me the most is that something exists. I have two refutations to this, one of them indeed does depend on the fallibility of logic itself. But don't jump off the ledge, we are still justified in believing things that may be incorrect. We can always analyze the probable truth of a claim with relativistic certainty.

I think we can have absolute certainty in our own existence (even if we're wildly wrong about what that IS...heck, we could be part of a greater consciousness).

It's the old "I think, therefore I am".

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

At 7/10/2013 5:57:38 AM, FREEDO wrote:Welcome to the site! It's certainly a great place. Most people use it to try and prove themselves right. I've only found it to increasingly bring me doubt. I don't even think exist anymore. But jumping off the ledge into absurdity is quite the rush, I must say.

Thanks! I see you have debated this topic quite well :D. The only argument that actually scared me the most is that something exists. I have two refutations to this, one of them indeed does depend on the fallibility of logic itself. But don't jump off the ledge, we are still justified in believing things that may be incorrect. We can always analyze the probable truth of a claim with relativistic certainty.

I think we can have absolute certainty in our own existence (even if we're wildly wrong about what that IS...heck, we could be part of a greater consciousness).

It's the old "I think, therefore I am".

Cogito ergo sum - I think, therefore I am, begs the question (logical fallacy) as it already presupposes 'I' exists before making it's conclusion. In the case that some other consciousness may be thinking for us, this just validates the statement that something exists.

So I would argue; yes. Absolute certainty can be proven. There is no chance that this is true:

(i) absolutely nothing exists

It is 100% certainly true that the statement "there is no existence" is false. If absolutely nothing existed, then not even the illusion of experience, or "I" would exist. That illusion would have to exist. There is no way around it. Something exists.

The sum of the thinking IS the mind, AKA the Thinking entity.There is no I in the LATIN,

In the case that some other consciousness may be thinking for us, this just validates the statement that something exists.

The Fool: The Consciousness is the thinking. I think we can have absolute certainty in our own existence (even if we're wildly wrong about what that IS...heck, we could be part of a greater consciousness).

The sum of the thinking IS the mind, AKA the Thinking entity.There is no I in the LATIN,

In the case that some other consciousness may be thinking for us, this just validates the statement that something exists.

The Fool: The Consciousness is the thinking.

SOCRATES: I shall try to explain more clearly: we speak of something carried and something carrying, of something led and something leading, of something seen and something seeing, and you understand that these things are all different from one another and how they differ?

EUTHYPHRO: I think I do.

SOCRATES: So there is also something loved and"a different thing" something loving.

EUTHYPHRO: Of course.10

SOCRATES: Tell me then whether the thing carried is a carried thing because it is being carried, or for some other reason?

EUTHYPHRO: No, that is the reason.

SOCRATES: And the thing led is so because it is being led, and the thing seen because it is being seen?

EUTHYPHRO: Certainly.

SOCRATES: It is not being seen because it is a thing seen but on the contrary it is a thing seen because it is being seen;

SOCRATES: I shall try to explain more clearly: we speak of something carried and something carrying, of something led and something leading, of something seen and something seeing, and you understand that these things are all different from one another and how they differ?

EUTHYPHRO: I think I do.

SOCRATES: So there is also something loved and"a different thing" something loving.

EUTHYPHRO: Of course.10

SOCRATES: Tell me then whether the thing carried is a carried thing because it is being carried, or for some other reason?

EUTHYPHRO: No, that is the reason.

SOCRATES: And the thing led is so because it is being led, and the thing seen because it is being seen?

EUTHYPHRO: Certainly.

SOCRATES: It is not being seen because it is a thing seen but on the contrary it is a thing seen because it is being seen;

The Fool: Its not just something, it is something "Thought."

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

That is, you cannot leap to a being using Logic without conspicuousness, to know of logic at all. Let alone use Logic.

Thus if there is even something "being" Perceived, then it is something certain and it is certain that its perceiver exist.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

At 7/10/2013 5:18:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:So I would argue; yes. Absolute certainty can be proven. There is no chance that this is true:

(i) absolutely nothing exists

It is 100% certainly true that the statement "there is no existence" is false. If absolutely nothing existed, then not even the illusion of experience, or "I" would exist. That illusion would have to exist. There is no way around it. Something exists.

I would agree with that. However, it gets slightly more interesting when you go into the wording of the question a little further.The OP asked if absolute certainty can be proven - which to me implies the imparting of a certainty from one mind to another.

When you showed in your post that you can say with certainty that the statement "absolutely nothing exists" is false, is that the same as "proving it"? Or is it just reaching a conclusion in your own mind? After all, the only existence you CAN be certain of is your own.

I guess one could argue that you just "proved" it to me, but you don't know for certain that I exist, only that you do.

I think I just made my own head hurt.

"I'm not saying I don't trust you...and I'm not saying I do. But I don't"

At 7/10/2013 5:18:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:So I would argue; yes. Absolute certainty can be proven. There is no chance that this is true:

(i) absolutely nothing exists

It is 100% certainly true that the statement "there is no existence" is false. If absolutely nothing existed, then not even the illusion of experience, or "I" would exist. That illusion would have to exist. There is no way around it. Something exists.

I would agree with that. However, it gets slightly more interesting when you go into the wording of the question a little further.The OP asked if absolute certainty can be proven - which to me implies the imparting of a certainty from one mind to another.

Fair enough, but that is solipsism. If one is a solipsist, then they can still prove to themselves that at least something exists for certain. Even the illusion of reality is still something.

When you showed in your post that you can say with certainty that the statement "absolutely nothing exists" is false, is that the same as "proving it"?

One can only prove the self-evident by pointing out the self-evident.

Or is it just reaching a conclusion in your own mind? After all, the only existence you CAN be certain of is your own.

It all depends on what you mean by "proven" I guess.

I guess one could argue that you just "proved" it to me, but you don't know for certain that I exist, only that you do.

Then you are a part of me in a way (my imagination), thus I proved it to myself essentially.

At 7/10/2013 5:18:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:So I would argue; yes. Absolute certainty can be proven. There is no chance that this is true:

(i) absolutely nothing exists

It is 100% certainly true that the statement "there is no existence" is false. If absolutely nothing existed, then not even the illusion of experience, or "I" would exist. That illusion would have to exist. There is no way around it. Something exists.

I would agree with that. However, it gets slightly more interesting when you go into the wording of the question a little further.

The OP asked if absolute certainty can be proven - which to me implies the imparting of a certainty from one mind to another.

When you showed in your post that you can say with certainty that the statement "absolutely nothing exists" is false, is that the same as "proving it"? Or is it just reaching a conclusion in your own mind? After all, the only existence you CAN be certain of is your own.

I guess one could argue that you just "proved" it to me, but you don't know for certain that I exist, only that you do.

I think I just made my own head hurt.

The Fool: The Cogito is not supposed to be a logical argument, it is a precondition of logic. The Whole point of it is that is a necessary presupposition with accompanies any thought at all.It doesn't beg the question of logic..As logic is a language which already begs the question of its users.But People create for themselves different versions of other arguments to themselves., internal straw-mans to themselves, to refute themselves..

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

At 7/10/2013 5:18:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:So I would argue; yes. Absolute certainty can be proven. There is no chance that this is true:

(i) absolutely nothing exists

It is 100% certainly true that the statement "there is no existence" is false. If absolutely nothing existed, then not even the illusion of experience, or "I" would exist. That illusion would have to exist. There is no way around it. Something exists.

I would agree with that. However, it gets slightly more interesting when you go into the wording of the question a little further.

---;>>>>>>>People create for themselves different versions<<<<<<&------

The OP asked if absolute certainty can be proven - which to me implies the imparting of a certainty from one mind to another.

The Fool: No it doesn"t imply that.>>>>>------But People create for themselves different versions of other arguments to themselves., -----<<<<<

Fair enough, but that is solipsism. If one is a solipsist, then they can still prove to themselves that at least something exists for certain. Even the illusion of reality is still something.

The Fool: ".>>>>>>>>internal straw-mans to themselves, to refute themselves..---<<<<<<<<<<

When you showed in your post that you can say with certainty that the statement "absolutely nothing exists" is false, is that the same as "proving it"?

The Fool: No cause what is not would not exist to true.

->>>>>>>>.to refute themselves-<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

One can only prove the self-evident by pointing out the self-evident.

The Fool:>but People create for themselves different versions of other arguments to themselves:<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Or is it just reaching a conclusion in your own mind? After all, the only existence you CAN be certain of is your own.

It all depends on what you mean by "proven" I guess.

The Fool: Its mean to show something is true.

-->> different versions of other arguments to themselves------<<<<<<

I guess one could argue that you just "proved" it to me, but you don't know for certain that I exist, only that you do.

Then you are a part of me in a way (my imagination), thus I proved it to myself essentially.

...--->>>>>>> different versions of other arguments to themselves------<<<<<<

I think I just made my own head hurt.

------------>>>to refute themselves-------------<<<<><(89)

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

The Fool: "However according to logical inquiry I must assert that absolute certainty cannot be proven and therefore the knowledge itself may be fallible as well as the logic I use to assert it. "

The Fool: "Logical Inquiry" doesn"t force you to assert anything. And you cannot proof what could not be proven as what is Not does not exist to know about.Therefore nothing could follow but your own self creation. And self-refutation.So then how are you going to start the argument?

Orangatang: I have quite a strong case backing me up and would like to hear your insight into this question.

The Fool: You created for yourself your own self demise.

Orangatang: I am (refutes himself)also currently debating this topic here: http://www.debate.org.... I would like to advertise this debate to you philosophers because 1)

The Fool: Ah, but what about Foolosophers?

Orangatang:I believe(refutes himself) it is an important topic and 2) I wish (refutes himself)to have my debate voted for by the most fair and understanding individuals (philosophers).

The Fool: Foolosophers can be very understanding, but what is Not, cannot be understood, as it is not there to stand under.

Orangatang: I believe(refutes himself) I have an airtight argument ready to be deployed in Round 4 and will repeat it hear for refutation once the debate is up for voting.

The Fool: Many people believe many things but the Religion section is two forums down.Just click that Jump to topic button. And you should see the Religion forum option, and bu-bye.

Freedo: Welcome to the site! It's certainly((refutes himself)) a great place. Most people use it to try and prove themselves right. I've only found it to increasingly bring me doubt(therefore he exist, refutes himself. ) I(refutes himself. ) don't even think exist anymore. But jumping off the ledge into absurdity is quite the rush, (I must say (refutes himself).)

<(80)

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

At 7/10/2013 8:41:27 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:The Fool: "However according to logical inquiry I must assert that absolute certainty cannot be proven and therefore the knowledge itself may be fallible as well as the logic I use to assert it. "

The Fool: "Logical Inquiry" doesn"t force you to assert anything. And you cannot proof what could not be proven as what is Not does not exist to know about.Therefore nothing could follow but your own self creation. And self-refutation.So then how are you going to start the argument?

Orangatang: I have quite a strong case backing me up and would like to hear your insight into this question.

The Fool: You created for yourself your own self demise.

Orangatang: I am (refutes himself)also currently debating this topic here: http://www.debate.org.... I would like to advertise this debate to you philosophers because 1)

The Fool: Ah, but what about Foolosophers?

Orangatang:I believe(refutes himself) it is an important topic and 2) I wish (refutes himself)to have my debate voted for by the most fair and understanding individuals (philosophers).

The Fool: Foolosophers can be very understanding, but what is Not, cannot be understood, as it is not there to stand under.

Orangatang: I believe(refutes himself) I have an airtight argument ready to be deployed in Round 4 and will repeat it hear for refutation once the debate is up for voting.

The Fool: Many people believe many things but the Religion section is two forums down.Just click that Jump to topic button. And you should see the Religion forum option, and bu-bye.

Freedo: Welcome to the site! It's certainly((refutes himself)) a great place. Most people use it to try and prove themselves right. I've only found it to increasingly bring me doubt(therefore he exist, refutes himself. ) I(refutes himself. ) don't even think exist anymore. But jumping off the ledge into absurdity is quite the rush, (I must say (refutes himself).)

<(80)

I do not refute myself as I am only using relativistic certainty to express these statements as most probably true. I do not have to point out every time I say a belief, opinion, or a statement using "I" that these are absolute truths, they are what I can be most certain of. All my beliefs and statements I can justify to the extent that they can be, even though they may be incorrect.

Well, I've posted my final round. I hope it makes for interesting reading, at the very least. I admit, my rounds prior to the final are perhaps lacking certainty, ironically, but I would like to think I brought together a coherent and comprehensive argument in the end.

I also had no idea this thread existed until a few minutes ago, thank you for making it.

I think Wocambs and I created an amazing debate about this topic (http://www.debate.org...) but still would like to know what you philosophers think about the Munchhausen trilemma and if it was properly invalidated by wocambs or not. I do not think it was invalidated because defending circular reasoning to get around it doesn't work. Circular arguments cannot ever be defended as they are redundant, you cannot prove a conclusion true by already assuming it to be true in a premise. I honestly cannot see how it is possible to invalidate the Munchhausen trilemma and I would like to see someone try.

At 7/16/2013 7:36:04 PM, Orangatang wrote:I honestly cannot see how it is possible to invalidate the Munchhausen trilemma and I would like to see someone try.

If the Munchhausen trilemma is true, then you cannot justify the claim that it is true.You believe that you have justified it as such.Therefore, you shouldn't believe the Munchhausen trilemma to be true.

"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker

At 7/16/2013 7:36:04 PM, Orangatang wrote:I honestly cannot see how it is possible to invalidate the Munchhausen trilemma and I would like to see someone try.

If the Munchhausen trilemma is true, then you cannot justify the claim that it is true.You believe that you have justified it as such.Therefore, you shouldn't believe the Munchhausen trilemma to be true.

The Munchhausen trilemma doesnt assert that it itself is absolutely true rather that nothing can be known with absolute certainty even this statement.

At 7/16/2013 7:36:04 PM, Orangatang wrote:I honestly cannot see how it is possible to invalidate the Munchhausen trilemma and I would like to see someone try.

If the Munchhausen trilemma is true, then you cannot justify the claim that it is true.You believe that you have justified it as such.Therefore, you shouldn't believe the Munchhausen trilemma to be true.

The Munchhausen trilemma doesnt assert that it itself is absolutely true rather that nothing can be known with absolute certainty even this statement.

None of the premises which I gave are negated by that assertion. The first premise holds counterfactually (that is, independently of whether the trilemma is true or not), and the second premise can only be negated if you drop your claim that you have justified the trilemma. So to deny the syllogism requires that you sacrifice the claim that the trilemma is justified (or even justifiable), but that also leads to the conclusion of the syllogism anyway. So either way, the conclusion goes through.

"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker

None of the premises which I gave are negated by that assertion. The first premise holds counterfactually (that is, independently of whether the trilemma is true or not), and the second premise can only be negated if you drop your claim that you have justified the trilemma. So to deny the syllogism requires that you sacrifice the claim that the trilemma is justified (or even justifiable), but that also leads to the conclusion of the syllogism anyway. So either way, the conclusion goes through.

I agree with your first premise. I disagree with the second, I have never claimed that the Munchhausen Trilemma is justified or not. I think the Munchhausen trilemma is most likely to be true for all cases. Therefore I am justified in believing the Munchhausen trilemma. You may assert that the Munchhausen trilemma unjustifies itself, but this is incorrect rather belief in the trilemma only means that certain justification is impossible to attain. Therefore the Munchhausen trilemma cannot be justified or not with absolute certainty. I must add: this is a much better argument against the Munchhausen trilemma than the defense of circular reasoning.

None of the premises which I gave are negated by that assertion. The first premise holds counterfactually (that is, independently of whether the trilemma is true or not), and the second premise can only be negated if you drop your claim that you have justified the trilemma. So to deny the syllogism requires that you sacrifice the claim that the trilemma is justified (or even justifiable), but that also leads to the conclusion of the syllogism anyway. So either way, the conclusion goes through.

I agree with your first premise. I disagree with the second, I have never claimed that the Munchhausen Trilemma is justified or not. I think the Munchhausen trilemma is most likely to be true for all cases. Therefore I am justified in believing the Munchhausen trilemma. You may assert that the Munchhausen trilemma unjustifies itself, but this is incorrect rather belief in the trilemma only means that certain justification is impossible to attain. Therefore the Munchhausen trilemma cannot be justified or not with absolute certainty. I must add: this is a much better argument against the Munchhausen trilemma than the defense of circular reasoning.

(You can ignore the formulas if you want; they make it easier for me to check myself if the need arises).

P1 An uncoerced rational agent will assert X if and only if it believes it is justified in asserting X. (Ax iff BjAx)P2 This agent will feel justified in asserting X iff it believes in X. (Bx -> BjAx) and (~BjAx-> ~Bx).P3 This agent will believe X iff it feels it is justified in believing X. (Bx iff Bjx)

P4: You do not believe that you would be justified in asserting the trilemma as true.P5: By P2 and P3, you shouldn't feel justified in believing the trilemma. (~BjAx-> ~Bjx)

C: By P3, you shouldn't believe in the trilemma (~Bjx-> ~Bx)

Thus, you cannot claim to justifiably believe in the trilemma while also declining to assert that the trilemma itself is true and justified. But then the first argument I gave would go through.

"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker

(You can ignore the formulas if you want; they make it easier for me to check myself if the need arises).

P1 An uncoerced rational agent will assert X if and only if it believes it is justified in asserting X. (Ax iff BjAx)P2 This agent will feel justified in asserting X iff it believes in X. (Bx -> BjAx) and (~BjAx-> ~Bx).P3 This agent will believe X iff it feels it is justified in believing X. (Bx iff Bjx)

P4: You do not believe that you would be justified in asserting the trilemma as true.P5: By P2 and P3, you shouldn't feel justified in believing the trilemma. (~BjAx-> ~Bjx)

C: By P3, you shouldn't believe in the trilemma (~Bjx-> ~Bx)

Thus, you cannot claim to justifiably believe in the trilemma while also declining to assert that the trilemma itself is true and justified. But then the first argument I gave would go through.

I do believe I am justified in asserting the trilemma as true based on a high degree of relativistic certainty. Therefore I can believe in the trilemma while declining to assert that it itself is absolutely true or justified.

(You can ignore the formulas if you want; they make it easier for me to check myself if the need arises).

P1 An uncoerced rational agent will assert X if and only if it believes it is justified in asserting X. (Ax iff BjAx)P2 This agent will feel justified in asserting X iff it believes in X. (Bx -> BjAx) and (~BjAx-> ~Bx).P3 This agent will believe X iff it feels it is justified in believing X. (Bx iff Bjx)

P4: You do not believe that you would be justified in asserting the trilemma as true.P5: By P2 and P3, you shouldn't feel justified in believing the trilemma. (~BjAx-> ~Bjx)

C: By P3, you shouldn't believe in the trilemma (~Bjx-> ~Bx)

Thus, you cannot claim to justifiably believe in the trilemma while also declining to assert that the trilemma itself is true and justified. But then the first argument I gave would go through.

I do believe I am justified in asserting the trilemma as true based on a high degree of relativistic certainty. Therefore I can believe in the trilemma while declining to assert that it itself is absolutely true or justified.

What is your certainty relative to?

How does asserting that the trilemma is indeed true or justified materially differ from asserting that it is "absolutely" true or justified? It is unreasonable to assert its truth in order to make your thesis, but then qualify it differently when it is applied against your thesis.

"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker

None of the premises which I gave are negated by that assertion. The first premise holds counterfactually (that is, independently of whether the trilemma is true or not), and the second premise can only be negated if you drop your claim that you have justified the trilemma. So to deny the syllogism requires that you sacrifice the claim that the trilemma is justified (or even justifiable), but that also leads to the conclusion of the syllogism anyway. So either way, the conclusion goes through.

I agree with your first premise. I disagree with the second, I have never claimed that the Munchhausen Trilemma is justified or not. I think the Munchhausen trilemma is most likely to be true for all cases. Therefore I am justified in believing the Munchhausen trilemma. You may assert that the Munchhausen trilemma unjustifies itself, but this is incorrect rather belief in the trilemma only means that certain justification is impossible to attain. Therefore the Munchhausen trilemma cannot be justified or not with absolute certainty. I must add: this is a much better argument against the Munchhausen trilemma than the defense of circular reasoning.

(You can ignore the formulas if you want; they make it easier for me to check myself if the need arises).

P1 An uncoerced rational agent will assert X if and only if it believes it is justified in asserting X. (Ax iff BjAx)P2 This agent will feel justified in asserting X iff it believes in X. (Bx -> BjAx) and (~BjAx-> ~Bx).P3 This agent will believe X iff it feels it is justified in believing X. (Bx iff Bjx)

P4: You do not believe that you would be justified in asserting the trilemma as true.P5: By P2 and P3, you shouldn't feel justified in believing the trilemma. (~BjAx-> ~Bjx)

C: By P3, you shouldn't believe in the trilemma (~Bjx-> ~Bx)

Thus, you cannot claim to justifiably believe in the trilemma while also declining to assert that the trilemma itself is true and justified. But then the first argument I gave would go through.

Can a rational agent assert that X is true based on some aesthetic principle (or past utility perhaps) in the absence of any knowledge of the area to which X corresponds combined with the knowledge that to obtain information in order to justify X would be prohibitively expensive?